Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-12-06
TEFE DECISION.
4 Tuu synopsis Of what the Court
Holds.

WAsmSGIoN. D. c., December D.
When the United States supreme
Court ,.embled at noon to-day 1t was
evident from the large attendance of
spectators and Of members of the bar
tla, important decisions were anticl-
lnrl and the presence of all the coun-
Ed ou both sides in the Virginia h0bCQS-
,.Uu. cases. as well as of the petitioners
themselves. indicated that emong such
decisions would he the Judgment of the
curt upon the latest phase Of the great
Virginia debt controversy.
Iue first decisions read were not OF
general public interest, but when Justice
Matthews SAID lac was directed to an-
uaunce the Judgment of the court in the
case of Attorney General Ayers and
C.mmonwealth-Attorneys Scott and
NcCabe, of Virginia, upon wrts OF
h1beQs corpus, every eve Was bent upon
him. and lac was followed with the closest
attention throughout the reading of a
long aud careiully-prepared opinion,
which he occupied more than an hour IN
delivering.
The facts Of the case are well known,
audthc long statement with which Justice
Matthews prelacod the opinion of the
court may be summarized 10y saying that
on June 6, 1857, James p. Cooper and
other holders of tax-receiyablo coupons
Of Virginia bonds began suit in the
United States Circuit Court for the East
era district Of Virginia against Morton
Iaryc, Auditor OF the State Of Nir-
ginia, and other State officers for
the purpose OF restraining them
from bringing suits in the State
courts for the collection of State taxes
iu cases where tenders had been made OF
4xrccei,able coupons and such tenders
had been refused. Upon the reading OF
ihe bill Of complaint Judge Bond, OF the
United States Circuit Court, issued an
order restraining the Auditor, Attorney
General. and all Commonwealth attOr-
news OF the State from instituting such
suits under such circumstances and from
doing anything TO carry into effect the
coupon-crusher act OF the Legislature
q Virginia of May y, 1887. Attorney
General Ayers and the other petitioners
disregarded this restraining order, and
we're theeupOn fined and committed
10 prison. They thcreupon brought Their
cases 10 this court upon applications iot
writs Of hQbc0s corpus, avowing that
the United States Circuit Court had no
jurisdiction 20 make such order or to en-.
terrain suit in which il was made. and
that their Imprisonment was without le'
gal authority. After stating the case al
great length and announcing IT as the
settled policy Of the court TO discharge
upon wits of habe0s corpus persons
held for contempt in "a case where the
lower court was without jurisdiction,
Justice Matthews said:
1.-The question presented is really
whether the Circuit Court had jurlsdic
ton 10 entertain the suit IN which the
order complained of was made, because
the sole purpose and prayer Of the bill
are by final decree perpetually W eDjoin
the defendants from taking any steps N
Tie execution OF the act Of May ~, 1884,
Ii the court had power upon the case
made ia the record 10 entertain suit ioi
that purpose, il has equal power. US
provisional remedy 10 grant restraining
order, the violation Of which consists o.
the contempt adjudged against the peti'
toners Tho principal contention On